lusterniafandomcom-20200216-history
Report 1553
Report #1553 Skillset: Knighthood Skill: PowerAttacks Org: Institute Status: Rejected Nov 2016 Furies' Decision: Rejected. We are in consensus with a number of Envoys who state that this is not a global Knighthood issue; individual specialisation should create reports as needed to tweak their wounding rate. Problem: Pre-Overhaul, Warriors both built wounds and dealt afflictions at the same time. They could also get to heavy wounds much quicker to deal the significant regeneration-cured afflictions or slitlocks, which were a core part of Warrior offense. Post-Overhaul, dealing afflictions comes at the cost of wounds, and it's much harder to build those wounds especially in group combat. This leads to a situation where Warriors are mostly relegated to spamming the most effective light wounds modifiers in groups. 0 R: 0 Solution #1: Change each power move to it's own syntax. Each power move would bypass parry and do double the wounds as normal (10/24), but also allow a modifier to be used as well. For example: ASSAULT . Exclude instakills from the available modifiers. 0 R: 0 Solution #2: Same as Solution 1, but only normal wounds (5/12) + modifier, with the option to do no modifier for additional wounds. Player Comments: ---on 10/28 @ 06:28 writes: I support solution 1. ---on 10/28 @ 07:37 writes: Supported, Solution 1. ---on 10/28 @ 13:27 writes: I happen to like the 'wound OR afflict' choice warriors have to make now. Pre- overhaul, warriors had to focus on avoiding numerous levels of RNG (parry, stance, rebounding, natural misses, swing hitting wrong bodypart, getting the wrong affliction etc). That focus on warriors has been removed, and shifted over to a decision between wounding or afflicting. If anything, I would support solution 2, to let them get a boost to wounding (without the modifier) or add an affliction for the power cost. I do think warriors are strong in groups, things like openchest for AL, twist for PB, pulp for BC can be really powerful in groups. I think in general, warriors are in a good spot, but some individual specs can use adjustments. ---on 10/30 @ 13:45 writes: I think those modifiers demonstrate the problem. Besides AL (I assume you mean OpenCavity), they don't require wounds, and don't require a bodypart targetted so they can bypass parry. This is the opposite of how I think Warriors should operate. ---on 10/30 @ 15:04 writes: I did mean opencavity but don't those abilities scale with certain effects? Twist via bleeding and pulp via bruising? My point was have various ways to approach group combat as a warrior. I don't consider twist/pulp 'light level' afflictions due to the scaling. Is there some general problem with keeping the 'wound or afflict' choice with sol 2? You are wounding in general, but choosing to spend power to either wound more, or afflict? ---on 10/30 @ 18:34 writes: With Solution 1 vs 2, it's a matter of what level is thought to be reasonable. My preference is Solution 1, as I think heavy modifiers should be available reasonably quickly if they're going to be utilised at all, due to commonness of a target being dead or escaped by the time heavy wounds is reached. Due to wounds not doing anything by themselves, and the lack of passives available to Warriors, I think it's necessary to be able to build wounds and afflict simultaneously. Solution 2 will help as well, though I think not to a level that's effective enough. ---on 10/30 @ 21:25 writes: I'm also of the opinion that warriors are already not doing badly in groups and I think that is why we've had such a hard time coming up with ways to buff the strength of some specs in 1v1 since it's hard to buff them in 1v1 without also buffing them in group combat. ---on 10/31 @ 23:33 writes: I don't really think any warrior actually struggles to build wounds 1v1 right? Heavy isn't that hard to get to already. If individual specs are struggling with hindering afflictions, we should address individual specs and not all warriors. ---on 11/1 @ 07:03 writes: I support solution 1. ---on 11/2 @ 00:37 writes: By the way, two warriors can have a person to heavy wounds instantly (40 wounds 1H, 48wounds 2H) and four warriors can have someone to crit instantly (80 wounds 1H, 96 wounds 2H). I don't think it's an issue to get people to heavy wounds 1v1 or in groups. ---on 11/3 @ 10:03 writes: Issue isn't often the Heavy wounds mark as much as it is Critical wounds, which is what every kill method requires for each spec...with some requiring more than one bodypart being also heavy in addition. Axelord needing the entire midline for instance at heavy with one being critical. Lot of time spent to manage that requiring massively extended fights 1v1, and even in groups with the Warrior being the main pusher for the kill (which I tend to find myself in somehow despite being fine just being support)...it's rather difficult to manage in any kind of effective manner. Taking into account the usual hinders, parries, and time curve for Power use and regeneration to manage, I believe the focus of this Report was to assist in getting that final kill rather than just wallowing at heavy. ---on 11/3 @ 13:35 writes: I think the problem with the whole afflict or wound dynamic is that some specs are really heavy on low wound ice affs (BC for example) and when they choose to afflict they are only truly sacrificing 1 wound because they are forcing you to apply ice to that body part. On the other extreme if a PB wants to use OpenChest they are sacrificing 12 wounds because openchest causes haemophilia which does not use ice. I think in the case of this report that spending power allowing you to do both is fine, but going forward I think we should even out that disparity between afflictions/specs somewhat. For example we could make it so performing a non ice affliction sacrificed x number of wounds based on 1h/2h instead of removing all wounds but now I'm rambling off the topic of this report. ---on 11/4 @ 00:44 writes: @Shango - are you really struggling to get to crit in general? I didn't seem to have issue being an AL or BC. You should be outpacing wound curing in general, so as long as you are applying the pressure, it should be building. I just don't see solution 1 as necessary. I don't see warriors as weak in groups that they need that kind of help. I don't see them as weak 1v1 that they need that help. If individual specs need help, buff individual specs not all warriors in general, or the discrepancies remain discrepancies. I also was reminded that the warrior special report has not been completed, and I think we should hold off on this report in general until that is added in and we can re-evaluate where warriors are at. Quite a lot of changes that potentially affect this report are in that special report. ---on 11/4 @ 00:54 writes: I just had a thought, does this work with one handers to allow them potentiall 20 wounds and 2 affs for 4p? Or 10 wounds + 2 affs w/ sol 2? There is already a huge disparity between 1handers and 2 handers, and this would just expand that even further. I don't think I can support this anymore with that in mind. ---on 11/4 @ 02:39 writes: Multiple warriors can burst wounds quickly, though multiple of any class is strong, and some with that number can just straight kill you in one round. For 1her vs 2her, the extra wounding of the 2her makes for a very large net difference in wounds when curing is accounted for, and the modifiers aren't/shouldn't be equal, with 2hers generally having stronger modifiers (though this isn't the case as much as I think it should be, yet). ---on 11/4 @ 12:44 writes: Even with the extra wounding, there's still a large disparity between 1h and 2h. 1hers allow such a greater flexibility in strategy that I don't know if the extra wounding accounts for that. I'm not really interested in expanding that discrepancy. If anything, I would maybe limit this report to 2hers and exclude 1hers all together. ---on 11/4 @ 15:26 writes: I'm actually not opposed to limiting to 2hers. I think some other ideas can be made for the 1her specs. ---on 11/13 @ 02:50 writes: Would also support the above comments re: 2h. ---on 11/13 @ 20:22 writes: Solution 1 supported. ---on 11/14 @ 17:47 writes: I don't think this is the way to go with warriors. I don't feel they are having issues with wound building, though some specs do suffer with lack of low level hindering. If we need to address any warrior deficiency I would prefer it to be on a case by case level. ---on 11/25 @ 03:13 writes: Thinking more on this, I don't think this report is needed at all. Warriors don't have issues building wounds in groups or 1v1, this is just unnecessary. I think it's better to work on individual specs instead of general buffs to warriors at this point.